I was tackled by a Christian with strong Calvanistic beliefs earlier today. One of her questions was, “If we’re all going to be saved then what was the point of Jesus dying?” My feeble response was, “Well what’s the point of Jesus dying for a handful of people?” My thoughts though were that God wants us to go through a process. A process that brings us to the point at which we come to the end of ourselves, and it’s at that point that we can meet Jesus and accept his free gift. But it felt a bit vague. I’d appreciate any comments, or please direct me to any threads dealing with this topic.
what a silly question she asked, Jesus died even for the sins of the Unbelievers, problem is sinfulness
and better to repent now for not to miss the 1st resurrection, they and Arminianists
believe in this: for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for sins of the believers,
but remember scripture cannot be broken. God is choosing just few people now for first resurrection (for evangelizing)
ask her what is the purpose of Millennium reign? it’s not just for escaping from the lake of fire!
Matthew 22:14 for so many are called but there are few to be chosen (ask her about this sentence)
I’m sure she can’t interpret this verse above, it’s more near to Arminianism than Calvinism
if we were chosen to be saved why God is calling many and choosing just few?
these people can’t understand about God’s SOVEREIGNTY, he can force anyone to repent, and he will,
because Bible says he wants to save All,
and they believe in the Doctrine of hell too, which is UnBiblical,
well, better to write short comments, see this:
That is like asking, “if the day time sky is going to be light, then why should the Sun rise?”
Salvation is the consequence of the work of Christ. Without his death, no one would be saved. Because of his death, all will be saved.
The answer of the apostle in Ephesians 2 gives light to this:
2:1 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus… 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Apart from union with Christ, there is no hope of deliverance from sin, nor of a life of obedience.
Edited to add:
You said “A process that brings us to the point at which we come to the end of ourselves, and it’s at that point that we can meet Jesus”
To me this implies being at the verge of despair. We do not have to be at the verge of despair to come to Christ. We need only feel our need of him. In the words of Joseph Hart:
Sounds like a pretty good answer to me. She couldn’t give any answer that wouldn’t just as well apply to all sinners as to some. In fact many (if not most?) Calv theologians acknowledge that Christ’s death was sufficient to save all sinners from sin not only a few, but that God chooses not to apply it with full salvific scope.
Maybe your friend is a Calv with teachers saying that God died for everyone He could manage to certainly save and not any more? – that would be weird, and would approach a hidden Arminian stance instead, but even if so, if Jesus had to die to save one sinner from sin that same reason would apply toward saving all sinners from sin.
So I thought that was a good answer you gave, even though it could have been unpacked in detail. I’m curious, how did she reply?!
Dan,
While we might not have to be on the verge of despair to come to Jesus (most children aren’t when they come to Jesus for example), some people choose not to until they they are on or over the verge of despair. That is one of the only ways, maybe the only way, despair can ever help anyone! God is not proud; He does not only accept people who think they have somewhere else they can still turn, He accepts people who think they have nowhere else to turn and doesn’t despise them for not coming to Him until they realize they have nowhere else to go.
Even John Hart apparently agrees, because he explicitly calls out to people who know they are broken, poor, weak, wounded, wretched, etc., and says “Nor of fitness fondly dream; All the fitness He requireth / Is to feel your need of Him.” We don’t become fit first and then come to Christ. Nor does Christ turn away helpless sinners: none but Jesus can do helpless sinners good. But some people need to realize they’re helpless before they come to Him.
And arguably everyone does have to realize they’re helpless sinners sooner or later, or in coming to Him we might think we’re advancing our own cause through some kind of merit (which John Hart also lyricizes against, btw. )
“If all are going to be saved then why did Jesus have to die?”
My answer - “He died to save us all.”
My question - If Jesus died to save us all, then why don’t you believe that all shall be saved?
Calvinists Limit the Atonement in Scope (Jesus only died for some, not all.)
Arminianits Limit the Atonement in Effect (Jesus’ sacrifice does not really save anyone, only makes salvation available for some to choose.)
Origenists Do NOT Limit the Atonement in Scope or Effect. (Jesus died for all and His death ultimately effects the salvation of all).
I might say, “That’s like asking, if a boat with 100 people sinks and a life guard jumps in the water and saves all 100 people then why did he jump in the water?” Which gives Yeshua (God our savior) more glory, saving all or only saving some? Is Jesus the savior of all, as scripture says, or is he only the savior of some? Did Jesus come to save the world as scripture says, or did He only come to save some? Did Jesus die for the sins of the world as scripture says, or only for the sins of some?
I wonder if this isn’t more of an atonement question than a UR question.
Did the two of you discuss purgatorial U? Because if you did, she may think you’re telling her that sinners who die and suffer chastisement are paying for their sins themselves. Or maybe it’s the fire that is saving them by burning away the desire to sin. (Setting us free from bondage to sin.)
BUT we can only be free from sin by entering in to Jesus’ death, and we can only be raised to life by entering into His resurrection. AND since we must freely relinquish our sins, we cannot be set free from them until we let go of them. So yes, Jesus’ work, both in His life, His death, and His resurrection are absolutely essential to the salvation of the world – but perhaps not in the exact WAY she believes it to be essential.
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it dies, it bringeth forth much fruit
He died so we can become the fruit and become as he is. No death, no fruit. We have to die to the flesh so we can put on Christ. Dying to release us from sin to pay the penalty for us was just the beginning of the story and not the major part.
it’s not about punishment, it’s not even about the sin? Its about God recreating himself in his creation. ‘The creature’ is us. Christ in us, our hope of glory. The entire purpose of creation.
You can never enter a conversation like that with just an argument. You need to **‘know’ **what you believe. That it is written on the fleshy tables of your heart. Universal salvation is not a theoretical exercise. It is the plan and purpose of God. It isn’t something to be unsure about.
Thanks very much to ALL of you for your comments I’ve had a quick read but will need to take some time to mull it over. It’s good for me to process it all slowly and actually fully understand what I believe LOL. Just to answer you quickly Cindy. It wasn’t much of a discussion, but more of a fast cutting debate on a thread I had joined in on Facebook, and she was quite defensive - even compared me to a deceiving angel of light . I guess I’m going to have accept those type of responses. It’s good to be able to come here and lick my wounds
Years ago, I was looking for scripture verses which stated the purpose of Christ’s death. This is what I found:
I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Titus 2:14 …who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
My response would be to ask why she thinks Christ had to die. If she believes Christ had to die to save some, would it not make sense that Christ had to die to save all?
I have fun with those fast-paced shoot from the hip style facebook “debates.”
You can never enter a conversation like that with just an argument. You need to ‘know’ what you believe. That it is written on the fleshy tables of your heart. Universal salvation is not a theoretical exercise. It is the plan and purpose of God. It isn’t something to be unsure about.
On reflection, the simple answer to why she asked was probably: 1.) she thought you were saying there was no such thing as sin (therefore no reason for Jesus to die to save sinners); or 2.) she thought you were saying God would simply pardon even unrepentant sinners (therefore no reason for Jesus to die to save sinners).
Yes Jason I think it’s easy for us all to jump to conclusions, and it’s easy to misunderstand. It’s quite possible i wasn’t clear enough, and I think I should be careful with where I share, what I share, and how etc. Inwardly I’m jumping out of my skin to share what I am discovering, but I have to check what may be motivating me.
We are all going to be saved because Jesus died. That’s the point.
This is why I consider the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3 to be significant. PSA to my mind is a completely blind alley, it explains nothing. However if the death of Jesus means that he broke hell open from the inside, and as a result it can no longer hold anyone, that would imply universal salvation.
I suspect that once Western Christians, particularly those who have been formed by a version of penal substitution, embrace an understanding of universal salvation, they find themselves at a loss to explain the atoning work of Christ. If God is perfect love and his justice is restorative, why did Jesus have to die? The problem, I think, is that the theory of penal substitution developed out of a theological framework that needed to explain why some were saved and some were not. Once one embraces the universalist position, with its rejection of the wrathful God who needs to be propitiated, the cross cries out for a new interpretation. Of course, one can still hold onto the old substitutionary view and be a universalist, yet I suspect that we intuitively understand that it just doesn’t make sense.
At this point what is needed is to return to the Eastern Fathers. A good place to begin is On the Incarnation by St Athanasius. What is needed is the regeneration and transformation of human nature. What is needed is the defeat of death and deliverance from the powers of sin and death. And it is precisely this that is accomplished in the Incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit.
In a sense, Jesus does say us from “Hell”; Paul says that Jesus saves us from “this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) “IF” a person was not ultimately saved from “this present evil age” and God sustained them so that they continued to exist in “this present evil age” forever, then that would be “Hell”.
I don’t like using the word “Hell” though, because it is not “Biblical”. None of the words that reference human penalty for sin mean “Hell”, not Sheol (grave, realm of the dead), not Hades (grave, realm of the dead), and especially not Gehenna (Hinnom Valley, a literal valley/ravine SSW of Mt. Zion, Jerusalem).
According to scripture this “present evil age” ultimately comes to an end. Jesus ultimately reconciles all of creation to Himself, to God. And all of creation, every tongue worships Jesus. And concerning death, Jesus overcomes death and hades, raising us all to life from death. He takes our calcified hearts and gives us new ones after His own heart, new hearts.
The purpose of the traditional doctrine of hell is to instill fear in people and control the masses. But God does not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and “SELF-control”, not being controled by others. Frankly, infernalism is a doctrine of demons.
)
. I guess I’m going to have accept those type of responses. It’s good to be able to come here and lick my wounds 